On 16/04/19 17:38, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
We recently discussed place=locality, and I now believe this tag
should be avoided, and perhaps deprecated.
To summarize, most of these features were added in North America from
GNIS imports; almost 20% are in Alaska alone (>200,000!), and they
were used for all sorts of features that are not populated places:
abandoned hamlets, former mining camps, construction sites, railroad
and highway junctions, former locations of Native Alaskan villages,
etc.
The key place is not only for populated places e.g.
place=island - some of these are not populated...
place=islet - many of these are not populated...
place=sea
place=ocean
Martin and Warin suggested to use abandoned:place=* for those which
were former place=hamlet, =village, isolated_dwelling, etc.
Several people mentioned ways they have used this tag for a "place
without population that has a name:" for example, to tag crossroads,
hills, a wood, a field, a pair islands, a group of a few lakes, an
informal landmark / route mark, an abandoned airstrip, a proposed
airstrip, etc.
However, most of these suggested uses have other tags that could be
more specific
crossroads: highway=junction
railway junction: railway=junction
hill: natural=peak or natural=ridge or natural=hill
wood: natural=wood
field: landuse=farmland or =meadow
islands: place=archipelago
airstrip: proposed:aerodrome=airstrip + abandoned=yes;
I don't think that fits the OSM use of the key proposed, I believe that is for
a feature that is likely to be built..
in this particular case it was proposed but is now not proposed yet people
still use the name.
OHM is the place to put history - not OSM, so proposed:aerodrome=airstrip with
the start and end dates can go there...
but the name should remain in OSM as that is still 'in use'.
abandoned:aerodome=airstrip
Two of the examples need new tags created:
3 lakes with a name: needs a new tag, perhaps natural=lake_group as a
multipolygon relation?
An informal landmark (eg an old car wheel up on a tree) - perhaps
there is something for this already.
There is all ready ... place=locality : A named place that has no population.!!!
I believe that place=locality was a reasonable idea when it was
proposed in 2007, and few tags had been developed. But now, over 11
years later, we have more specific tags for almost everything that is
currently tagged this way.
But not for 'A named place that has no population'. Which is whatÂ
place=locality is mean for.
My suggestion: check out all the features tagged with place=locality
in your area. If they have a more specific tag or a more precise tag
can be added, please remove the place=locality tag.
I have changed some tags from place=hamlet/village to place=locality as I know
that there has never ever been a population there ...
How many of these exist in 'your' area? Have you checked them and changed those
appropriately?
The example I gave is one that cannot be migrated to a better tag .. as there
is not other tag for it.
I have others too .. but I don't know the story behind them. Never the less
they are in use as local names used for navigation.
I would object strongly to there removal.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
